P and D entered into a master license agreement which was intended to be a consolidation of various agreements whereby P granted D licenses to maintain and use 'occupations' and 'appurtenances' over, across, along, and under land belonging to P and its affiliated railroads. The license agreement provides that D has the right to request that additional appurtenances be installed in or over P's land and that P is required to grant the request unless P's engineering officer determines that the installation would interfere with rail operations. P refused D's request to cross with fiber optic cable. D requested the PUC to resolve this dispute, and it ruled for D and P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.